USCCB OKs contraception in rape cases?

[Pug]

tuopaolo:

In Catholic moral theology the mere intention to do something sinful realizes the sin even when that intention is not executed. So for example if I intend to steal a million dollars then I have already sinned and would need to confess my intention of stealing – even if on the way to the bank I change my mind. So if a couple have sex, intending to contracept it afterwards, they have already sinned at the moment the intention is formed.

I fully realize a bad intent is enough to make a sin. I was responding the the situation another poster made, about two people NOT intending contraception at the time of sex, with no plans to do future contraception, but a few hours later the husband suddenly dies, and the widow at that point suddenly decides to apply spermicide. So, the sex would be fine, but later when she decides to do the spermicide, then there is a problem, because then she does have a contraceptive intent.

I was saying it would be wrong to do it then, even though the sex a few hours before had been fine. I think someone could misunderstand and figure that if everything was moral at the time of the sex, then whatever you suddenly decide to do afterwards would still be moral. This is not so, to my understanding.

 

[CCF_Jeff]

allhers: Maybe everyone ought to re-read this, it sounds fine to me just the way it is. Pay special attention to the wording this time, it says NOTHING about using artificial contraception or even emergency contraception,

Not true. Perhaps you might want to read it a little more closely yourself. Here is an excerpt from that USCCB Fact Sheet. Notice they use BOTH “contraception” AND “emergency contraception” in the very title of the document:

Fact Sheet
Emergency Contraception and Treatment
of Victims of Sexual Assault
www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/ecfact.htm

A woman who has been raped should be able to defend herself from a potential conception and receive treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm.

Defending oneself from potential conception after sexual intercourse is by its very definition artificial contraception. To remove any hint of doubt they explicitly spell it out for us: “treatments to suppress ovulation and incapacitate sperm”. I don’t know how you could possibly come to the conclusion that they are NOT talking about either artificial contraception or “emergency contraception” which is the so called “morning after” pills.

what it does say however, is that AS LONG as CONTRACEPTION HAS NOT taken place yet, then she would be allowed to be treated. Nothing wrong with this at all,

But as has been documented in the medical literature as posted elsewhere in this thread, there is no way they can tell for sure whether conception has taken place or not! Standard tests are designed for a couple of weeks later, and the blood tests can be very hard to interpret (meaning they can easily be wrong in their diagnosis). They can probably tell if she was pregnant before the attack, but certainly cannot reliably tell whether she is pregnant because of the attack or even for awhile before the attack (unless she does not go to the hospital for a couple of days or so).

the Doctors know how long it takes to be able to safely treat her, and as long as she is honest about how long ago it happened, then all would be well. Seems to me this is why they say to go to the hospital IMMEDIATELY if at all possible.

If I remember correctly, conception can take place as early as an hour or two after intercourse. If so, it would be highly unlikely that any victims would be able to get to the hospital, go through the signup process, actually get in to see a doctor and receive treatment before it was physically impossible for conception to occur.

That is probably why the Secretariat notes in the above document:

Tests are available to determine whether ovulation has occurred.3

They undoubtedly note this because if the woman has recently ovulated (within the last 24 hours) she may already be pregnant and they would not be able to reliably tell.

(to be continued in part 2)

 

[CCF_Jeff]

allhers: As so many here have already pointed out, if she has already CONCEIVED, (become preganant) then, she will not be allowed to use any thing that would KILL the baby.

I am very glad that the Bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities is insisting on doing pregnancy tests before allowing the administration of drugs to suppress ovulation (emergency contraception). That undoubtedly is preventing many pregnancies.

Unfortunately, it does not go far enough. Even if the victim has not already conceived, taking emergency contraceptives (morning after pills) may still induce abortion!

Ovulation and conception may still occur later even if “emergency contraception” (EC) is administered before ovulation. Note the Secretariat’s wording in their fact sheet:

If taken before ovulation, EC may delay or inhibit ovulation, thereby preventing conception. (emphasis added)

Unfortunately, if the woman still ovulates and conceives, one of the other mechanisms of the EC may kick in and an abortion is induced. The Secretariat’s fact sheet acknowledges the sometimes abortifacient nature of ED when discussing it’s modes of operation:

(4) inhibiting implantation of the newly conceived human embryo.

I would also point out that the Secretariat’s fact sheet has a footnote that says in part:

See, e.g., C. Kahlenborn et al., “Postfertilization Effect of Hormonal Emergency Contraception,”.

If we take a look at that document we find that Dr. Kahlenborn writes:

**CONCLUSIONS:** Based on the present theoretical and empirical evidence, both the Yuzpe regimen and Plan B *likely act at times by causing a postfertilization effect, regardless of when in the menstrual cycle they are used*. These findings have potential implications in such areas as informed consent, emergency department protocols, and conscience clauses. (3) (emphasis added)

The bottom line in all of this is that even if Catholic hospitals (& any others that might use the Bishop’s Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities Fact Sheet as a moral guideline) were to faithfully adhere to the USCCB implied protocol in such case, they would in fact sometimes be inducing abortions!

As for those bringing up all these different reasons why anyone would change their mind after having marital relations with your spouse, for whatever reason, (his death, lack of employment, etc…) NO, you cannot for ANY reason use these options then. No matter what. Period. End of story!

But what I am trying to figure out is by what consistent logic that could or should be the case. If artificial contraception is not inherently evil (which appears to be the stance of the US Bishops if they condone its use in cases of rape) but only dependent upon the circumstances. Why could there not be other circumstances where it might be legitimate?

 

[CCF_Jeff]

ames61:

Try this-a rape voids the conjugal act by its very nature. It renders an intrinsically good action into an evil one. So protecting the victim from the consequenses (pregnancy) would not be changing the consequences of the conjugal act, because the conjugal act, as such never occured. What occured was a violation which in and of itself was an evil, so avoiding the consequences of an evil act is not evil in and of itself (though you can still not use an abortifacient)

Whereas the husband wife scenario, it was a conjugal act so it any action to avoid the consequences would be an affront to the conjugal act, and thus an intrinsic evil.

Don’t know if this holds up, but its how I rationalize the emergency contraception protocol.

In Christ,
Amy

That is how I would guess the “majority of theologians” view it and it makes sense at first glance, but unless I am missing something, I think it won’t hold up.

If turning what would otherwise be a selfless act of self giving into a lie is the only reason that artificial contraception is wrong, that would, of course, explain why it would then be valid in cases of rape.

On the other hand, if that were true, it would also mean that it was valid in other cases where there was no true “conjugal act” (or “marital act”) either, and as I understand it is still a grave sin to use ABC in those other cases.

For instance, the tragic fact of the matter is that it is all too common that even wives are unduly pressured into having sex even though they are obviously unwilling. I’ll copy a bit from a previous post:

What if a husband was really pressuring his wife for sex even though he knew she did not want to. Maybe she had had a very problematic pregnancy and had not even fully recovered from it. What if he wasn’t Catholic or didn’t live his faith and tried to pressure her to use birth control and threatened to leave her (or go visit his “girlfriend” or find a prostitute or whatever) unless she gave him what he wanted when he wanted it.

Obviously the guy is a cad and most women would probably want at least a separation from him at some point, but many, perhaps even most women would be heavily pressured at that point. For those who felt they were forced into sex acts in which they didn’t even pretend to be giving fully and completely of themselves (and which their partner could care less about anyway and obviously was not giving of himself reciprocally either), would it not still be wrong to contracept?

There are any number of potential variations of the above scenario but I had always assumed using contraception in such instances was always objectively wrong, though the subjective guilt might be mitigated by the circumstances.

It seems to me that if USCCB statement is correct, and contraception is not* itself* intrinsically wrong, it might actually be licitly used in such circumstances. The sin would exclusively be in distorting the true meaning of the marital act by pressuring one’s partner to engage in it against their will. If the true meaning of the marital act is already destroyed, there is no sin in contracepting on the part of the pressured party as there was no pretense of self-giving in the first place. Or at least that’s how it seems to me, though I know I may be missing something.

I also wonder what the ramifications would be on other situations where the true meaning of the marital act is hopelessly distorted or destroyed from the git-go. For example, would ABC be licit in cases of prostitution, where neither partner had the slightest intention of fully and completely giving of themselves to their spouse, or in cases of group sex or orgies etc. etc. Obviously grave sin is involved from the beginning, but does that then mean that artificial contraception is not a sin in such circumstances?

 

[CCF_Jeff]

ames61:

Try this-a rape voids the conjugal act by its very nature. It renders an intrinsically good action into an evil one. So protecting the victim from the consequenses (pregnancy) would not be changing the consequences of the conjugal act, because the conjugal act, as such never occured. What occured was a violation which in and of itself was an evil, so avoiding the consequences of an evil act is not evil in and of itself (though you can still not use an abortifacient)

Whereas the husband wife scenario, it was a conjugal act so it any action to avoid the consequences would be an affront to the conjugal act, and thus an intrinsic evil.

Don’t know if this holds up, but its how I rationalize the emergency contraception protocol.

In Christ,
Amy

That is how I would guess the “majority of theologians” view it and it makes sense at first glance, but unless I am missing something, I don’t think it will hold up.

If turning what would otherwise be a selfless act of self giving into a lie is the only reason that artificial contraception is wrong, that would, of course, explain why it would then be valid in cases of rape.

On the other hand, if that were true, it would also mean that it was valid in other cases where there was no true “conjugal (“marital”) act” either. As I understand it, however, contraception is still a grave sin in those other cases.

For instance, the tragic fact of the matter is that it is all too common that wives are unduly pressured into having sex even though they are obviously unwilling. I’ll copy a bit from a previous post:

What if a husband was really pressuring his wife for sex even though he knew she did not want to. Maybe she had had a very problematic pregnancy and had not even fully recovered from it. What if he wasn’t Catholic or didn’t live his faith and tried to pressure her to use birth control and threatened to leave her (or go visit his “girlfriend” or find a prostitute or whatever) unless she gave him what he wanted when he wanted it.

Obviously the guy is a cad and most women would probably want at least a separation from him at some point, but many, perhaps even most women would be heavily pressured at that point. For those who felt they were forced into sex acts in which they didn’t even pretend to be giving fully and completely of themselves (and which their partner could care less about anyway and obviously was not giving of himself reciprocally either), would it not still be wrong to contracept?

There are any number of potential variations of the above scenario but I had always assumed using contraception in such instances was always objectively wrong, though the subjective guilt might be mitigated by the circumstances.

It seems to me that if USCCB statement is correct, and contraception is not* itself* intrinsically wrong, it might actually be licitly used in such circumstances. The sin would exclusively be in distorting the true meaning of the marital act by pressuring one’s partner to engage in it against their will. If the true meaning of the marital act is already destroyed, there is no sin in contracepting on the part of the pressured party as there was no pretense of self-giving in the first place. Or at least that’s how it seems to me, though I know I may be missing something.

I also wonder what the ramifications would be on other situations where the true meaning of the marital act is hopelessly distorted or destroyed from the git-go. For example, would ABC be licit in cases of prostitution, where neither partner had the slightest intention of fully and completely giving of themselves to their spouse, or in cases of group sex or orgies etc. etc. Obviously grave sin is involved from the beginning, but does that then mean that artificial contraception is not a sin in such circumstances?

 

[CCF_Jeff]

Pug: I think it would be wrong to interfere with the natural consequences of legitimate intercourse for some end that involves some type of contraception. Take a look at this CCC

**2370 **…“every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:

The sin would take place when the widow applied the spermicide, not when they had conjugal relations. Do you see this passage another way?

No, that is how I had always interpreted it. My problem is trying to come up with a unified theory or theology or whatever that would explain, using the Catechism, encyclicals etc., why contraception is intrinsically wrong in every instance other than rape.

If it were intrinsically wrong as murder, rape etc. is, it could not be justified in any situation. It is a well established doctrine that we cannot do evil in order that good may come of it. We can’t even deliberately do something intrinsically evil to avoid an even greater evil. We can’t kill an innocent person, for instance, even if someone threatens that they will kill our entire family if we don’t. We also can’t use contraception, even for the protection of a woman whose life might be endangered if she were to conceive.

Therefore, it seems that the U.S. Bishops have concluded that contraception itself is not intrinsically evil, but rather that in some (virtually all) situations its effect is evil.

In this thread, some have proposed that the way this is reconciled is by noting that Humanae Vitae (which the Catechism is quoting here) is speaking of “conjugal relations”. “Conjugal” means within the context of marriage.

It is then argued that rape is obviously not within the context of “conjugal relations”, but is an act of violence. The sin, therefore, is in the rape, an inherent tearing asunder of what “conjugal relations” truely are designed to be. The use of contraception is not distorting or destroying or making a lie of “conjugal relations” in this instance, because there were no “conjugal relations” to start with.

This does seem to help reconcile things quite a bit, but there are still problems with it, or at least ones I haven’t been able to come to grips with yet.

First of all, the translation from the Vatican website does not use the term “conjugal relations” in section 14 of Humanae Vitae, but rather that translation uses the term “sexual intercourse” which, of course, has a much broader meaning:

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (underlining added)

This would seem to indicate that contraception would not be licit even in cases of rape. It may be a translation issue, since both the EWTN translation (1st link) and the English translation of the Catechism both use the term “conjugal relations” rather than "sexual intercourse. Moreover, Humanae Vitae, Casti Connubii, and the Catechism all speak of contraception within the context of marriage.

Another problem, however, with hanging our hat on that narrower meaning of “conjugal relations” or speaking of the sinfulness of artificial contraception within the context of the “marital act” is that as far as I know, contraception is also sinful in and of itself even when used outside the bounds of marriage.

We wouldn’t say that contraception is not evil for an unmarried couple. Someone else posited that perhaps one might posit even in the case of unmarrieds that they had a “quasi” or “psuedo” marriage covenant, and that seems to have some merit, but still leaves some unresolved problems in my mind.

There are other situations where even a “psuedo” marriage could not really be imputed and yet it is my understanding that contraception would be sinful in those situations, over and above the inherent sinfulness of the illicit sexual relations themselves. These situations would include but not be limited to, people having “recreational sex” and “one night stands”, prostitutes etc. In some of these situations, one of the parties may not fully consent, but be pressured into it by circumstances or by the other party, but I do not think that means that the conjugal act is therefore already irreparably damaged and therefore contraception causes no further harm and is therefore licit.

(Continued on next page)

 

[CCF_Jeff]

Others might try to reconcile things by considering this a case of self-defense, similar to shooting an attacker. I don’t think that really holds up either, however, as far as I can tell. The death of an attacker must not be our goal, but rather an unintended consequence of preventing the attack. (Link)

Pope Paul VI explicitly rejected the “lesser of two evils” argument in Humanae Vitae, though once again he was speaking in the context of marriage:

Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, …Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it…

Any ideas on how to reconcile all of this?